Direct Marketing in India has been around quite long, with pioneering publishers selling mail order books in the 1920s. Today, DRTV flourishes, as does e-tailing. Some marketers are using snail mail and email very profitably too. Yet we keep hearing that DM doesn't work because "Indians don't read!"
Our blog started as a search for sense in this tiny 'industry' but soon we began to search for sense elsewhere too. We haven't found much, yet...

Links we like

About Me

Nabanita started off as an agency account servicing person, but now works in a client organization, as a full-time consultant at the Taj for their database marketing.
Pabitra started as an copywriter, but has done plenty of planning, and some amount of analytics. He is a freelance copywriter.
Both of us believe labels are idiotic in direct: You think of everything, do what you're best at. This has led us to teach ourselves a fair amount of software too (FoxPro, SPSS, SQL, and, of course, Excel and Access).
We worship Claude Hopkins, revere Bob Stone, and idolize Robert Updegraff (Obvious Adams).

Wednesday 29 December 2010

Stalin cynical, Roosevelt great

The halt of the Russian forces at the doors of Warsaw as the Poles rose in revolt under General Tadeusz 'Bor' Komorowski is universally condemned as the most cynical decision of the Second World War, where Satlin let the Nazis kill of any potential threat to his power in Poland.

The Russians maintain, at least under communist rule, that they had asked the Poles not to revolt because they (the Russians) were too exhausted and stretched to attack Warsaw. Hence, the decision not to come in aid of the rising had, from their point of view, more to do with saving Russian lives than taking Polish ones. Obviously, this logic cannot matter to Western historians.

The other day, I was watching A Tale of Three Cities: How the U.S. Won World War II, a lecture by David Kennedy. In the Q&A session following his talk, someone asked if Roosevelt’s decision to postpone the second front in Europe in spite of Stalin repeatedly asking for it was not a cynical decision, by which he saved American lives at the cost of many Russian dead. Had UK and USA attacked France in 1943 instead of waiting till 1944, they may have taken many divisions off the eastern front. Kennedy replied that while Roosevelt may had wanted to save American lives, that’s what he was voted into office to do. Hence, he can’t say that Roosevelt was cynical. He was doing his duty as USA’s president.

Well, that logic cannot apply to Stalin, because the Red dictator had no value for Russian lives. Didn’t he send troops to the front without guns or ammunition? Didn’t he gamble with underequipped armies? Did he not kill millions in gulags and by execution? He did. But can’t the Warsaw decision be militarily and morally correct in spite of all this?

Also, what were Stalin’s choices during the second world war? The Nazis had already shown that they were out to kill Russians, not conquer them. In fact, they killed and enslaved many who welcomed them as liberators from communist dictatorship. So, it is very unlikely that Stalin would have saved lives by letting his forces surrender.

Prof Kennedy made another interesting point during the Q&A. He said that by his estimates, USA supplied around 20% of the martial the Russians used. Now, western historians make it seem as if all the Russians’ material came courtesy Uncle Sam. While that 20% may have been decisive, it wouldn’t have mattered hadn’t the Russians been able to come up with the balance 80%.

It’s not my intention to be an apologist for Stalin and his gang. However, if we want to learn from history, we have to be objective. More importantly, historians must remember that they are not propagandists.